"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:45:56 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:15:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
Yes, its a good summary of your situation. I have no issue with that.
Then why do you presume to inject your irrelevant fantasy world into
reality so frequently?
How many times have you had to pull your gun in "reality," Dave? In other
words, what kind of cockeyed reality do you live in? A shooting gallery,
and
you're the duck?
Irrelevant. The right to own something confers no obligation to
defend a need to own it, to you or anyone else.
Don't start the bait-and-switch, Don. We aren't talking about rights. We're
talking about Dave's definition of "reality." His reality appears to be
pretty weird one, in terms of actual events.
You know full well that I have no problem with his right to defend himself.
What I have a problem with is his idea of what the real probabilities are.
Andrew seems to be living in the real world. Dave appears to be living in a
bad movie.
Pity you need to, though. Glad I don't have to be armed and ready to
do the same.
Yeah, like that. The point I'm making, which you're missing, is that I
don't care that you don't get it. Really. But when I do care is when
peole who, like you, don't get it, want to stop me from dealing with
reality.
It sounds like Andrew lives in reality; you live in the fantasy. Do you do
a
lot of dry fire practice before going to bed? Do you keep your gun handy
when you watch movies with bad guys on TV?
It sounds like Andrew's perception of reality is more in line with
yours.
It also seems to be more accurate, unless you're a gang-banger drug dealer
who lives in a crack alley on the bad side of Memphis.
For that matter, what suggestion has Andrew made that he wants to stop you
from dealing with "reality"? Have you been feeling paranoid lately?
Reread, please. He said "people like [Andrew]". Does that fit you?
People "like Andrew" doesn't include Andrew? Are you reading your own words,
Don? It sure sounds to me like he's including Andrew himself. By what logic
is he not? And I'll ask you what I asked him: By what twisted logic do you
come to the conclusion that Andrew wants to grab your guns?
Andrew seems to have his head screwed on straight. Dave is living a paranoid
fantasy and Gunner has a head full of mush fed to him by the loony-tunes at
Guncite.
You want to run some numbers, and see what's real? Or would you rather live
in a fantasy world, like them?
Here's an example: Gunner's "data" on the number of times guns are used in
defense is based on a study by Gary Kleck, which I know well, and about
which I wrote an analysis in 1994 (no, I don't still have it; it went the
way of old hard disks). There was an attempt to repeat some of it by the
DOJ/National Institute of Justice in 1997, reported by Philip J. Cook and
Jens Ludwig:
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf.
It's unlikely that Gunner has ever read that study, but he's probably read
the Guncite summaries and Kleck's commentary about it. In fact, unless he
continues to pretend he doesn't read my posts, he'll find some way to
respond to my recent one with DOJ figures and he'll probably quote this,
unless he reads this post first g:
"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by
law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey
conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993.
Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of
between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each
had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study
specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
"Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey
in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and
Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this
survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."
But what Guncite doesn't tell you is that the DOJ study (NSPOF) fairly
obliterates Kleck's study. Here, they're talking about how they closely
copied his methodology and got equally ridiculous results:
"For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the
NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS [National Crime
Vicitimization Survey] -estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU
assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were
close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed! [What they're
saying here is that repeating Kleck's study leads to the conclusion that
people defended themselves with a gun in 19 percent of aggravated assaults
and 36 percent of robberies. Considering that actual defensive use of a gun
as reported by police in actual crimes runs between 1% and 3%, the
conclusion is that the Kleck study gives you crap results to the tune of
10:1 or even much more. That agrees with the relative numbers Gunner and I
cited in a recent post. He's at least 10:1 full of crap, in other words.]
"NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed
by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases."
Gaackk! Yeah, I'll say it's out of line, unless something over 100,000
gunshot victims per year are self-medicating. Maybe they're doing
self-surgery with a Bowie knife and a bottle of whiskey. d8-) What I didn't
repeat here is the statistic that Kleck's study, and the NSPOF duplicate of
it, indicate that women defend themselves with guns in rape attempts, in
more cases than all of the rapes AND ATTEMPTED RAPES reported in the
National Crime Victimization Survey. There sure must be a lot of
pistol-packing mommas out there! Cloud-cuckooland, anyone?
Kleck makes a few good points in his response but unfortunately they address
the wrong issue. He gives reasons that the NSPOF study underreports the
numbers. But the NSPOF actually came up with numbers almost as ridiculous as
his. The real issue is that the methodology leads to demonstrably ridiculous
results. Kleck's study was very carefully done, very scientific...crap. Read
the NSPOF study and you'll get a clearer picture of what this is all about.
Of course, Guncite tells you none of this and Gunner probably has never
heard it before. That's why his head is full of mush. As for Dave, it's
harder to characterize his fantasies but he seems to think the world is out
to get him. Maybe he wears Nomex suits when he drives his car, too; it would
make a lot more sense, statistically speaking.
The bottom line here is that rights are one issue: I believe that anyone has
a right to defend him- or herself, and that can include defense with a
concealed-carry gun if they reasonably believe that's what is required. I'm
not quibbling over percentages in terms of rights.
But don't try to tell me that it makes sense in terms of real threats, or
that it's "reality." That, simply put, is nuts. Reality is that you're four
times more likely to be killed in a car accident, even if you don't count
where you live. If you live and work in a decent community, it's probably
more like 50 times more likely, or even more. But few people who claim
they're carrying a gun to defend themselves against "reality" would even
consider wearing five-point seatbelts, having a full rollcage, and wearing a
firesuit. Any of those things is far more likely to protect them from injury
or death, in reality, than carrying a gun. Reality is the numbers.
You could ease your tensions by getting more target practice. Make up a
big
puppet and label it "Liberal." Stuff with straw. Fire away.
That is gratuitous patronization unworthy of your ability to
contribute.
Dave lives and breathes gratuitous patronization. It's time to toss a little
back at him.
--
Ed Huntress